MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205192469 · doi:10.1016/j.crfs.2022.01.009

Meta-analyses of molecular seafood studies identify the global distribution of legal and illegal trade in CITES-regulated European eels

2022· article· en· W4205192469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vincent Nijman, Florian Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Research in Food Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCITESTransparency (behavior)International tradeBusinessSustainabilityDistribution (mathematics)Food securityFisheryBiologyEcologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Authentication of seafood products by means of molecular techniques has relevance for food sustainability and security, as well as international trade regulation, linked to transparency in food manufacturing. We focus on the molecular detection of the depleted European eel Anguilla anguilla , a species for which strict international trade regulations are in place since 2010, in studies conducted outside Europe. We found thirteen studies from nine countries (Canada, China, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and USA) for which, on average, 59 ± 28% of the 330 sequenced eel samples comprised European eel. Only China, Japan, South Korea, and USA reported the import of European eel in the years prior to sampling. The authentication of eel products demonstrates a global, in part illegal, trade in European eel, covered up by incomplete or fraudulent labelling. This calls into question the compliance with existing national and international trade regulations and its implications for food safety and sustainability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.387
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.112 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Research in Food ScienceSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207